Also echos Jon Stewarts thoughts from Crossfire that the media does nothing more than sit on the sidelines and let people say whatever they want.

s

Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation

Yeah, this nonsense notion of "balance" which is let Side A have their say and then let Side B have their say is entirely why (television, mostly) journalism in modern America is so problematic. The news media SHOULD have a bias -- a bias towards empirically verifiable truths. The print media still does a pretty good job of this, particularly more thoughtful publications like the New Republic.

But treating "Intelligent Design" and evolution as if they were equally potentially valid and equally deserving of consideration is absurd. One is science, the other is religion dressed up in a funny outfit.

We need to find away to re-instill a passion for the truth for the sake of truth, right for the sake of being right and a desire to tear down those who lie and mislead in our media. People who try to support such absurd notions as creationism/ID, geocentricism and the like should be TERRIFIED of the media, for the media should be all about tearing apart arguments and showing who's right, not just reporting what talkingheads have to say.

I'm no creationist, but the problem with your argument is that people who believe in creationism have faith in that belief, and understand it to be the truth through faith. To them, it is no less true than 'science,' which they may also describe as faith-based -- just that the faith is not based in religion.

Furthermore, there are more than a few journalists that are god-believing bible-believing reporters. They also attempt (like any good reporter) to be truthful in their presentation. The problem is in the definition of truth. If you don't believe in god, then there's no way that you can understand how they define truth.

I have my own, private beliefs about religion. I do not choose to practice organized religion. I do not believe in creation. I choose to believe that our concept of evolution is closer to the truth. Yet, I am of one ilk, they are of another, and for me to blindly tell them that their beliefs are trash is the same thing as them telling me that mine are. I am also not a moral relativist. I do believe that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong,' yet who am I to impose that on others, and who am I to demand that the media follow my pattern of beliefs?

In truth, the media that are privately owned have a responsibility to present the bias of those who own the organizations. If people disagree, then they should start their own media outlets to provide their own bias. Governmental-based media outlets should only ever report facts about what has happened while presenting theories as what they are: theories -- be they religion or science based.